Domestic partnership in the United States

Last updated

In the United States, domestic partnership is a city-, county-, state-, or employer-recognized status that may be available to same-sex couples and, sometimes, opposite-sex couples. Although similar to marriage, a domestic partnership does not confer any of the myriad rights and responsibilities of marriage afforded to married couples by the federal government. Domestic partnerships in the United States are determined by each state or local jurisdiction, so there is no nationwide consistency on the rights, responsibilities, and benefits accorded domestic partners.

Contents

Couples who live in localities without civil unions or domestic partnerships may voluntarily enter into a private, informal domestic partnership agreement, specifying their mutual obligations; however, this involves drawing up a number of separate legal documents, including wills, power of attorney, healthcare directives, child custody agreements, etc., and is best done with the guidance of a local attorney. Without governmental enforcement of the agreement, all such provisions of the partnership may be ignored by hospitals, healthcare professionals, or other persons, and may be held invalid by state courts in disputes over child custody or over a deceased partner's estate.

Terminology

As understood in the United States, a civil union is a legally recognized status almost identical to marriage, whereas domestic partnership often connotes a lesser status that may or may not be recognized by local law. However, the terminology is still evolving; the exact level of rights and responsibilities of domestic partnership depends on the particular law of a given jurisdiction.

Since 1999, the West Coast states of California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada have all passed domestic partnership statutes; in contrast, most legislatures in the New England region and New Jersey have preferred the term civil unions.

In many other countries, the equivalent legal status is referred to as registered partnership, and domestic partnership refers to cohabitation, rather than a legal status.

The legal rights afforded to partners depends on the location. State-level recognition of partners is, generally, significantly stronger and can help partners secure benefits such as leave similar to that provided under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The range of benefits is generally greater in such cities as San Francisco, New York City, and Washington, D.C.

Employment benefits

.mw-parser-output .legend{page-break-inside:avoid;break-inside:avoid-column}.mw-parser-output .legend-color{display:inline-block;min-width:1.25em;height:1.25em;line-height:1.25;margin:1px 0;text-align:center;border:1px solid black;background-color:transparent;color:black}.mw-parser-output .legend-text{} Cities, boroughs, towns, townships, unincorporated areas, and villages that offers domestic partner benefits Counties, consolidated city-counties, boroughs, parishes, and independent cities that offers domestic partner benefits State-wide partner benefits through same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership, designated beneficiary agreements, or reciprocal beneficiary relationships State-wide partner benefits through same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership, designated beneficiary agreements, or reciprocal beneficiary relationships, including state-wide domestic partnership benefits for state employees Civil unions legal in six Arizona cities US counties and cities with domestic partnership.svg
   Cities, boroughs, towns, townships, unincorporated areas, and villages that offers domestic partner benefits
   Counties, consolidated city-counties, boroughs, parishes, and independent cities that offers domestic partner benefits
  State-wide partner benefits through same-sex marriage, civil unions, domestic partnership, designated beneficiary agreements, or reciprocal beneficiary relationships, including state-wide domestic partnership benefits for state employees
Civil unions legal in six Arizona cities

Some public- and private-sector U.S. employers provide health insurance or other spousal benefits to same-sex partners of employees, although the employee receiving benefits for his or her partner may have to pay income tax on the value of the benefit.

Partner benefits are more common among large employers, colleges and universities than at small businesses. The qualifications for and benefits of domestic partnership status vary from employer to employer; some recognize only same-sex or different-sex couples, while others recognize both. [1]

According to data from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, the majority of Fortune 500 companies provided benefits to same-sex partners of employees as of June 2006. [2] [3] Overall, 41 percent of HR professionals indicate that their organizations offered some form of domestic partner benefits (opposite-sex partners, same-sex partners or both). [4]

The San Francisco Human Rights Commission maintains a list of health insurance providers that offer insurance plans that cover domestic partners, or employee+1 coverage online: Domestic partner insurance provider search. The Human Rights Campaign Foundation offers best practices on how to implement them (see: Domestic partner benefits Archived October 24, 2008, at the Wayback Machine ).

Taxation of benefits

Laws regarding same-sex partnerships by state, county, and local level in the United States Same-sex unions granting privileges similar to marriage Domestic partnership granting limited/enumerated privileges State grants benefits to state employees Same-sex unions not provided Not recognized by the federal government. However, same-sex marriage is legal nationwide (excluding American Samoa and some Native American tribal jurisdictions) and is recognized by the federal government. Domestic partnerships in Washington are only available when at least one of the partners is 62 years of age or older. Same-sex unions by US counties and cities.svg
Laws regarding same-sex partnerships by state, county, and local level in the United States
  Same-sex unions granting privileges similar to marriage
  Domestic partnership granting limited/enumerated privileges
  State grants benefits to state employees
  Same-sex unions not provided
Not recognized by the federal government. However, same-sex marriage is legal nationwide (excluding American Samoa and some Native American tribal jurisdictions) and is recognized by the federal government.
Domestic partnerships in Washington are only available when at least one of the partners is 62 years of age or older.

IRS Regulation Section 1.61-21(b)(1) generally requires that the imputed value of the benefit be considered taxable income. For example, if an employee covers his or her partner under an employer health insurance plan, the estimated amount the employer pays to cover the partner will be added to the employee's salary for tax purposes, unless the employee's partner is a qualifying dependent under Section 152. The same is not true for married couples. [5] There are some exceptions that allow for tax-free domestic partner benefits, such as for a domestic partner that qualifies as a dependent under Internal Revenue Code Sections 152(a)(9) through 152(b)(5), a certification and annual recertification that the support and relationship tests of section 152(a)(9) are met, and the relationship between the employee and domestic partner does not violate local law. [6]

The proposed Tax Parity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act would remove these tax inequities.

Cities and counties with domestic partnership registries

Some U.S. cities offer domestic partnership registries. Some private employers use domestic partnership registrations for the purpose of determining employee eligibility for domestic partner benefits. [1] The following are some examples of such registries.

New York City

Domestic partnerships in New York City [7] exist for same sex couples and opposite sex couples in which both are above the age of 18 and are New York City residents (or at least one party to the partnership is an employee of the City of New York). The status provides essentially three benefits: (1) the ability to remain in a "rent controlled" apartment after the domestic partner lease holder dies, (2) the ability to visit the domestic partner in a city hospital or jail and (3) the ability of city employees to obtain subsidized health insurance for their partners and to obtain the benefits of the Family Medical Leave Act. [8]

Signed into law by Rudolph Giuliani on July 7, 1997, the law codified executive orders by the previous two administrations. Other communities provide similar benefits; however one town, Eastchester, which had provided domestic partner benefits, has withdrawn the plan. [9] State employees have received similar benefits under executive orders of the Governor and have been given priority over bodily remains of Domestic Partner as enacted into law by Gov. George Pataki in February 2006. For a discussion of both the history and implementation of New York Domestic partnerships see the June 2003 report of an official New York City Council study. [10]

San Francisco

In 1982, a domestic partnership law was adopted and passed by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, but Dianne Feinstein, mayor of San Francisco at the time, came under intense pressure from the Catholic Church and subsequently vetoed the bill. Not until 1989 was a domestic partnership law adopted in the city of San Francisco. [11] As of December 2006, the city still offers a domestic partnership status separate from that offered by the state; city residents can apply for both. [12]

Cities in Ohio

The first city to offer domestic partnerships in Ohio was Cleveland Heights in 2003, which was passed by voter referendum. [13] In 2007, Toledo, Ohio, became the second city in Ohio to offer domestic partnerships. [14] In 2008, the Cleveland City Council voted to enact a domestic partner registry. [15] In 2011, the Athens City Council established a domestic partner registry. [16] In 2012, the Dayton City Commission, the Cincinnati City Council, and the Columbus City Council approved ordinances creating domestic partnership registries. [17] [18] [19] Yellow Springs, Ohio, also passed a domestic partnership registry in 2012, as did Oberlin. [18] [20]

States offering domestic partnership or civil union status

State laws regarding same-sex unions similar to marriage in the United States Domestic partnerships or civil unions granting state privileges of marriage Domestic partnerships granting limited/enumerated privileges No same-sex unions similar to marriage Same-sex unions similar to marriage banned Same-sex and opposite-sex unions similar to marriage banned Not recognized by the federal government. However, same-sex marriage is legal nationwide (excluding American Samoa and some Native American tribal jurisdictions) and is recognized by the federal government. Same-sex unions similar to marriage are provided at the local level in many jurisdictions. Domestic partnerships in Washington are only available when at least one of the partners is 62 years of age or older. Same-sex unions in the United States.svg
State laws regarding same-sex unions similar to marriage in the United States
  Domestic partnerships or civil unions granting state privileges of marriage
  Domestic partnerships granting limited/enumerated privileges
  No same-sex unions similar to marriage
  Same-sex unions similar to marriage banned
  Same-sex and opposite-sex unions similar to marriage banned
Not recognized by the federal government. However, same-sex marriage is legal nationwide (excluding American Samoa and some Native American tribal jurisdictions) and is recognized by the federal government. Same-sex unions similar to marriage are provided at the local level in many jurisdictions.
Domestic partnerships in Washington are only available when at least one of the partners is 62 years of age or older.
Laws regarding same-sex partnerships similar to marriage by state, county, and local level in the United States Same-sex unions similar to marriage Domestic partnership granting limited/enumerated privileges State grants benefits to state employees Same-sex unions not provided Not recognized by the federal government. However, same-sex marriage is legal nationwide (excluding American Samoa and some Native American tribal jurisdictions) and is recognized by the federal government. Domestic partnerships in Washington are only available when at least one of the partners is 62 years of age or older. Same-sex unions by US counties and cities.svg
Laws regarding same-sex partnerships similar to marriage by state, county, and local level in the United States
  Same-sex unions similar to marriage
  Domestic partnership granting limited/enumerated privileges
  State grants benefits to state employees
  Same-sex unions not provided
Not recognized by the federal government. However, same-sex marriage is legal nationwide (excluding American Samoa and some Native American tribal jurisdictions) and is recognized by the federal government.
Domestic partnerships in Washington are only available when at least one of the partners is 62 years of age or older.

California

Domestic partnerships in California exist for same-sex couples and for opposite-sex couples. The state of California first offered domestic partnerships in 2000. The Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act, which added nearly all the state rights and responsibilities of marriage to domestic partnerships was signed in 2003 and took effect in 2005. Couples in state registered domestic partnerships prior to 2005 who remained registered on January 1, 2005 became entitled to the rights and responsibilities of the new law. Paid Family Leave covers registered domestic partners. In 2007, domestic partnerships were allowed to change their surnames and jointly file state income taxes - eliminating the last piece of discrimination in the domestic partnerships laws at the state level.

Colorado

Since July 1, 2009, both opposite sex and same sex couples have been able to enter a designated beneficiary agreement which will grant them limited rights. [21] Civil unions became available as well on May 1, 2013.

District of Columbia

Domestic partnership in the District of Columbia have been recognized since 1992. Effective since March 1, 2002 and expanded further to "near spousal level" rights which were given by a district vote in 2003, 2005, 2007, 2008 and in 2009.

Hawaii

Reciprocal beneficiary registration was enacted in 1997. The law took effect on June 1, 1997. Civil unions became available to same- and opposite-sex couples on January 1, 2012.

Illinois

The Village of Oak Park, Illinois in October 1997 began offering a domestic partnership registry for same-sex couples. [22] Largely symbolic, the registry was the first of its kind in the state, and it required couples to swear that they were in committed relationships of at least six months. [23] Oak Park's Village Board had approved the registry at a meeting in September 1997. [24]

Maine

Domestic partnerships in Maine, enacted in 2004, exist for all couples, regardless of sex. The law took effect on January 1, 2005.

Maryland

Two bills, providing some limited domestic partnership rights for same-sex and different-sex couples, were passed by the 2008 General Assembly and came into effect on July 1 of that year.

Nevada

A bill put forth creating a domestic partnership registry with the State attorney's office, passed by both chambers of the Nevada Legislature in early May 2009, but was vetoed by Gov. Jim Gibbons. On May 31, 2009, the Legislature overrode the governor's veto, thus putting domestic partnerships into effect. In 2002, Nevada voters approved Question 2 -- the referendum banning state recognition of same-sex marriages. The domestic partnerships are not officially marriages, but may be elevated to the status of a marriage if the couple involved wishes to proceed thus far (just like California). Heterosexual couples may also apply for a domestic partnership under Nevada law. The law took effect October 1, 2009.

New Jersey

Domestic partnerships in New Jersey have been available since July 30, 2004 for same-sex couples, and for opposite-sex couples in which one person is above the age of 62. However, on October 25, 2006, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that under the New Jersey state constitution, the state could not deny the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, although the court left it up to the legislature whether to call such relationships marriage or to use a different term. Complying with the court's ruling, on December 14, 2006, the New Jersey Legislature passed a bill establishing civil unions for same-sex couples, which was signed into law by the governor on December 21 and came into effect on February 19, 2007.

Oregon

House Bill 2007, the Oregon Family Fairness Act, created legal recognition for same-sex couples and their families through domestic partnerships. The bill was signed by Governor Ted Kulongoski on May 9, 2007, [25] and was due to come into effect on the following January 1. However, on December 28, 2007, a federal judge delayed implementation of the law pending a hearing on the legality of a petition drive to overturn the law. On February 1, the judge lifted the injunction on the law. Same-sex couples were able to register beginning February 4. Oregon is the first state in the Union to offer domestic partnerships with all the state-granted rights of heterosexual marriage to same-sex couples despite a statewide constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Wisconsin

The Wisconsin legislature passed its 2009-2010 Budget on June 26, 2009. Governor Jim Doyle included language in the bill to allow for domestic partnership registrations for all unmarried persons, that will provide certain and limited rights and obligations of marriage. Wisconsin is not the first state to offer such domestic partnership benefits despite having a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage and comparable alternatives, like civil unions. A legal analysis found on May 15, 2009, that adding such language to the budget despite the bans was likely legal. The law took effect August 3, 2009. Wisconsin ended its domestic partnership registry on April 1, 2018. [26] [27]

Washington

The Washington State Legislature approved a bill establishing domestic partnerships in the state during the 2007 (expanded further in 2008 and 2009) legislative sessions. All domestic partnership bills were signed by Governor Christine Gregoire.

Referendum 71 sought voter confirmation of the 2009 domestic partnership extensions (SB 5688) in the 2009 elections. The bill was approved by 53 percent of the voters and became law.

From June 30, 2014, domestic partnerships have only been available when at least one of the partners is sixty-two years of age or older. [28]

Other states

Many states recognize through their judicial systems cohabitation agreements and common law partner agreements concluded between two partners in a relationship. These are de facto domestic partnerships that protect both parties and allow for shared property and court recognition of their relationships. [29] [30]

Additionally sometimes adult adoption by gay couples creates a de jure domestic partnership in all 50 states. [31]

Domestic partnership initiatives

Establish/expand

Election dateLocaleOutcome
November 7, 1989 San Francisco, California Failed with 49.5% voting in favor. [32]
November 6, 1990 San Francisco, California Passed with 54% voting in favor. [33]
March 2, 2004 San Francisco, California Passed with 68% voting in favor. [34]
May 13, 2006 Austin, Texas Passed with 65.07% voting in favor. [35]
November 7, 2006 Colorado (Referendum I)Defeated with 53% voting against.

Repeal/prohibit

Election dateLocaleOutcome
November 6, 1990 Seattle, Washington Failed.
November 5, 1991 San Francisco, California Failed with 59.1% voting against. [36]
May 7, 1994 Austin, Texas Repealed with 62% voting in favor. [37]
November 7, 1995 Northampton, Massachusetts Repealed by a margin of 87 votes.
November 6, 2001 Houston, Texas Passed with 52% voting in favor. [38]
November 3, 2009 Washington (Referendum 71)Defeated with 53% voting in favor.
November 2, 2010 El Paso, Texas Repealed with 55% voting in favor. [39] [40] [41]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civil union</span> Legal union similar to marriage

A civil union is a legally recognized arrangement similar to marriage, created primarily as a means to provide recognition in law for same-sex couples. Civil unions grant some or all of the rights of marriage.

A domestic partnership is a relationship, usually between couples, who live together and share a common domestic life, but are not married. People in domestic partnerships receive legal benefits that guarantee right of survivorship, hospital visitation, and other rights.

A California domestic partnership is a legal relationship, analogous to marriage, created in 1999 to extend the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. It was extended to all opposite-sex couples as of January 1, 2016 and by January 1, 2020 to include new votes that updated SB-30 with more benefits and rights to California couples choosing domestic partnership before their wedding. California Governor Newsom signed into law on July 30, 2019.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in New Jersey since October 21, 2013, the effective date of a trial court ruling invalidating the state's restriction of marriage to persons of different sexes. In September 2013, Mary C. Jacobson, Assignment Judge of the Mercer Vicinage of the Superior Court, ruled that as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor, the Constitution of New Jersey requires the state to recognize same-sex marriages. The Windsor decision held that the federal government was required to provide the same benefits to same-sex couples who were married under state law as to other married couples. Therefore, the state court reasoned in Garden State Equality v. Dow that, because same-sex couples in New Jersey were limited to civil unions, which are not recognized as marriages under federal law, the state must permit civil marriage for same-sex couples. This ruling, in turn, relied on the 2006 decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lewis v. Harris that the state was constitutionally required to afford the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. The Supreme Court had ordered the New Jersey Legislature to correct the constitutional violation, by permitting either same-sex marriage or civil unions with all the rights and benefits of marriage, within 180 days. In response, the Legislature passed a bill to legalize civil unions on December 21, 2006, which became effective on February 19, 2007.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in the District of Columbia since March 3, 2010. On December 18, 2009, Mayor Adrian Fenty signed a bill passed by the D.C. Council on December 15 legalizing same-sex marriage. Following the signing, the measure entered a mandatory congressional review of 30 work days. Marriage licenses became available on March 3, and marriages began on March 9, 2010. The District of Columbia became the first jurisdiction in the United States below the Mason–Dixon line to allow same-sex couples to marry.

In April and May 2007, following a previous attempt in 2005, the Oregon state legislature passed legislation to make virtually all of the rights afforded by the state to married couples available to same-sex couples. The status is referred to in Oregon law as a domestic partnership, avoiding the use of the terms marriage or civil union. Governor Ted Kulongoski signed the bill on May 9, 2007. While January 1, 2008 was the date the statute would have taken effect, a court challenge had delayed its implementation. It was resolved on February 1, 2008, and the law went into effect that day, with registrations beginning on February 4, 2008.

Tom Brougham is a Berkeley, California gay rights activist who was the first to suggest a new legal category for recognizing couples other than marriage, and who coined the phrase domestic partnership.

In response to court action in a number of states, the United States federal government and a number of state legislatures passed or attempted to pass legislation either prohibiting or allowing same-sex marriage or other types of same-sex unions.

State Registered Domestic Partnerships (SRDP) in Washington were created in 2007 following the Andersen v. King County decision. Subsequent legislation has made an SRDP the equivalent of marriage under state law. As a result of the legalization of same-sex marriage in the state, from June 30, 2014, SRDP will be available only when at least one of the partners is sixty-two years of age or older.

Same-sex unions in the United States are available in various forms in all states and territories, except American Samoa. All states have legal same-sex marriage, while others have the options of civil unions, domestic partnerships, or reciprocal beneficiary relationships. The federal government only recognizes marriage and no other legal union for same-sex couples.

This is a list of notable events in the history of LGBT rights that took place in the year 2009.

Same-sex marriage has been fully recognized in Minnesota since August 1, 2013. Same-sex marriages have been recognized if performed in other jurisdictions since July 1, 2013, and the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples on August 1, 2013. After 51.9% of state voters rejected a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in November 2012, the Minnesota Legislature passed a same-sex marriage bill in May 2013, which Governor Mark Dayton signed on May 14, 2013. Minnesota was the second state in the Midwest, after Iowa, to legalize marriage between same-sex couples, and the first in the region to do so by enacting legislation rather than by court order. Minnesota was the first state to reject a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, though Arizona rejected one in 2006 that banned all legal recognition and later approved one banning only marriage.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Nevada since October 9, 2014, when a federal district court judge issued an injunction against Nevada's enforcement of its same-sex marriage ban, acting on order from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit had ruled two days earlier that the state's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Same-sex marriage was previously banned by an amendment to the Constitution of Nevada adopted in 2002. The statutory and constitutional bans were repealed in 2017 and 2020, respectively.

Same-sex marriage has been recognized in Montana since a federal district court ruled the state's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on November 19, 2014. Montana had previously denied marriage rights to same-sex couples by statute since 1997 and in its State Constitution since 2004. The state appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but before that court could hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all same-sex marriage bans in the country in Obergefell v. Hodges, mooting any remaining appeals.

As of 2015, all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia legally recognize and document same-sex relationships in some fashion, be it by same-sex marriage, civil union or domestic partnerships. Many counties and municipalities outside of these states also provide domestic partnership registries or civil unions which are not officially recognized by the laws of their states, are only valid and applicable within those counties, and are usually largely unaffected by state law regarding relationship recognition. In addition, many cities and counties continue to provide their own domestic partnership registries while their states also provide larger registries ; a couple can only maintain registration on one registry, requiring the couple to de-register from the state registry before registering with the county registry.

Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in North Carolina since October 10, 2014, when a U.S. District Court judge ruled in General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper that the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. Governor Pat McCrory and Attorney General Roy Cooper had acknowledged that a recent ruling in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear an appeal in that case established the unconstitutionality of North Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage. State legislators sought without success to intervene in lawsuits to defend the state's ban on same-sex marriage.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in California</span>

California is seen as one of the most liberal states in the U.S. in regard to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) rights, which have received nationwide recognition since the 1970s. Same-sex sexual activity has been legal in the state since 1976. Discrimination protections regarding sexual orientation and gender identity or expression were adopted statewide in 2003. Transgender people are also permitted to change their legal gender on official documents without any medical interventions, and mental health providers are prohibited from engaging in conversion therapy on minors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Wisconsin</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people in the U.S. state of Wisconsin have many of the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexuals; however, the transgender community may face some legal issues not experienced by cisgender residents, due in part to discrimination based on gender identity not being included in Wisconsin's anti-discrimination laws, nor is it covered in the state's hate crime law. Same-sex marriage has been legal in Wisconsin since October 6, 2014, when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider an appeal in the case of Wolf v. Walker. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is banned statewide in Wisconsin, and sexual orientation is a protected class in the state's hate crime laws. It approved such protections in 1982, making it the first state in the United States to do so.

The Domestic Partner Task Force was a governmental body established in 1983 by the Californian City of Berkeley's Human Relations and Welfare Commission to draw up the structure of the city's domestic partnership program. Leland Traiman, then the vice-chair of the HRWC and a gay rights activist, was appointed as leader of the Task Force.

The U.S. state of Texas issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognizes those marriages when performed out-of-state. On June 26, 2015, the United States legalized same-sex marriage nationwide due to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling Article 1, Section 32, of the Texas Constitution provided that "Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman," and "This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage." This amendment and all related statutes have been ruled unconstitutional and unenforceable. Some cities and counties in the state recognize both same-sex and opposite-sex domestic partnerships.

References

  1. 1 2 "Human Rights Campaign - Defining Domestic Partners for Benefits Purposes". Archived from the original on October 24, 2008. Retrieved March 6, 2008.
  2. ↑ Human Rights Campaign Foundation - State of the Workplace for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Americans, 2005-2006 Archived September 12, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
  3. ↑ "Human Rights Campaign - GLBT Equality at the Fortune 500". Archived from the original on October 24, 2008. Retrieved March 9, 2008.
  4. ↑ "Employees Undervalue Benefits, SHRM 2007 Survey Finds" . Retrieved March 9, 2008.[ permanent dead link ]
  5. ↑ "Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits". Human Rights Campaign Foundation. Archived from the original on September 3, 2007.
  6. ↑ "Ruling 200339001" (PDF). Internal Revenue Service. September 26, 2003. Retrieved July 10, 2012.
  7. ↑ NYCmarriagebureau.com Archived January 10, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  8. ↑ NYCmarriagebureau Archived February 4, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  9. ↑ GLBT Couples Law | news | NY Town Drops DP Benefits Archived June 3, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  10. ↑ Domestic but not equal: Domestic partner benefits inconsistently applied at public agencies
  11. ↑ Bishop, Katherine (May 31, 1989). "San Francisco Grants Recognition To Couples Who Aren't Married". The New York Times . Retrieved May 1, 2010.
  12. ↑ Office of The County Clerk: Filing a Domestic Partnership Agreement Archived December 7, 2006, at the Wayback Machine
  13. ↑ "Domestic Partner Registration". Clevelandheights.com. Archived from the original on January 23, 2013. Retrieved April 7, 2014.
  14. ↑ "Domestic Partnerships". Archived from the original on May 13, 2012. Retrieved 2012-06-09.
  15. ↑ Blog.Cleveland.com
  16. ↑ City to start registering domestic partners
  17. ↑ "Dayton opens domestic partner registry". www.daytondailynews.com. May 1, 2012. Retrieved April 7, 2014.
  18. 1 2 "Dayton, Cincinnati OK Measures For Domestic Partnerships". Ontopmag.com. May 18, 2012. Retrieved April 7, 2014.
  19. ↑ "Columbus City Council Creates Domestic Partner Registry". Plunderbund.com. July 31, 2012. Archived from the original on August 24, 2014. Retrieved April 7, 2014.
  20. ↑ "Oberlin Council approves domestic partner registry". Chronicle.northcoastnow.com. September 21, 2012. Retrieved April 7, 2014.
  21. ↑ "Ritter signs bill that will help gay couples". The Denver Post. Associated Press. April 9, 2009. Retrieved April 10, 2009.
  22. ↑ von Alroth, Joanne (October 28, 1997). "OAK PARK GAY COUPLES SIGN UP AS PARTNERS VILLAGE'S REGISTRY IS THE FIRST IN ILLINOIS". Chicago Tribune . p. 1.
  23. ↑ von Alroth, Joanne (October 28, 1997). "OAK PARK GAY COUPLES SIGN UP AS PARTNERS VILLAGE'S REGISTRY IS THE FIRST IN ILLINOIS". Chicago Tribune . p. 1.
  24. ↑ von Alroth, Joanne (October 28, 1997). "OAK PARK GAY COUPLES SIGN UP AS PARTNERS VILLAGE'S REGISTRY IS THE FIRST IN ILLINOIS". Chicago Tribune . p. 1.
  25. ↑ "Gay News From 365Gay.com". Archived from the original on May 13, 2007. Retrieved May 10, 2007.
  26. ↑ "Wisconsin Legislature: Chapter 770".
  27. ↑ "The Latest: Panel Votes to End Domestic Partner Registry". U.S. News & World Report . June 15, 2017. Archived from the original on April 7, 2023.
  28. ↑ 26.60.030 Requirements.
  29. ↑ "Prenups aren't just for married couples anymore". CNN. November 2, 2004. Retrieved March 30, 2012.
  30. ↑ "Cohabitation Agreement FAQs". Law Depot. Retrieved March 30, 2012.[ permanent dead link ]
  31. ↑ "Adult Adoption: A New Legal Tool for Lesbians and gay men". Golden Gate University. Retrieved March 30, 2012.
  32. ↑ "San Francisco Ballot Propositions Database :: San Francisco Public Library". Sfpl.org. November 7, 1989. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
  33. ↑ "San Francisco Ballot Propositions Database :: San Francisco Public Library". Sfpl.org. November 6, 1990. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
  34. ↑ "San Francisco Ballot Propositions Database :: San Francisco Public Library". Sfpl.org. February 3, 2004. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
  35. ↑ "Why Do They Say 'Open Government' and 'Clean Water' Like They Were Bad Ideas? The Controversy Over Propositions One and Two". theaustinbulldog.org. July 16, 1998. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  36. ↑ "San Francisco Ballot Propositions Database :: San Francisco Public Library". Sfpl.org. November 5, 1991. Retrieved November 9, 2012.
  37. ↑ "Austin City Council revisiting domestic partner benefits issue". The Dallas Voice. February 3, 2006. Retrieved September 1, 2009.[ permanent dead link ]
  38. ↑ "Major Ballot Victories in Michigan and Florida; Loss in Houston", Common Dreams, November 7, 2001 Archived December 3, 2013, at the Wayback Machine
  39. ↑ "City Council To Consider Repealing Voter-Approved Benefits Initiative". kvia.com. November 9, 2010. Archived from the original on December 2, 2013. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  40. ↑ "Anti-Gay Ballot Initiatives Hurt Straight People, Too". The Huffington Post. November 5, 2010. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
  41. ↑ "El Paso, Texas Retains Ban on Domestic Partner Benefits". towleroad.com. November 17, 2010. Retrieved November 27, 2013.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.